3 ms·

I enjoyed that the expert's recommendation was not "regulation", but to change drone design so they more easily break apart on impact. More likely to be impleme

I enjoyed that the expert's recommendation was not "regulation", but to change drone design so they more easily break apart on impact. More likely to be implemented and does not need enforcement on the consumer level.

mxuribe 8y ago
Well, there go my plans to build an adamantium drone! :-p (I know, i know, adamantium is not real...)
- StavrosK 8y ago
  Even if it were real, you'd get a ~3 minute flight time, so eeeeeh.
cco 8y ago
I would also support drone manufacturers self regulating via GPS deadzones in designated no fly areas. Nearly all drones of a meaningful size are GPS enabled and could be disabled in range of a no fly zone. Yes it could be spoofed, yes it would require some effort from manufactures, but self inflicted regulation as an industry here could pay dividends if the alternative is ham fisted regulation following a drone/airplane catastrophe.
- NiekvdMaas 8y ago
  That's exactly what all major drones do. DJI has a market share of about 75% [1] and you cannot take off any of their success in a restricted flight zone. Flight zone updates are also mandatory and forced to the users. Same for Yuneec, which has another 5% market share. 1. http://thedronegirl.com/2018/09/18/dji-market-share/ http://thedronegirl.com/2018/09/18/dji-market-share/
  - cco 8y ago
    Ah interesting, I didn't know!
djsumdog 8y ago
I feel like that's kinda the wrong route to go; because manufactures shouldn't be encouraged to design things for planned obsolescence. There has to be a balance, to where the drone is of the same quality, but has safety components that collapse like the engine compartment of a car.
annabellish 8y ago
>More likely to be implemented In the big guys, sure. "My first drone" bought from some low-end chinese reseller over ebay probably isn't going to do anything which raises costs unless it has to, which is why regulation exists. Not suggesting regulation at this point is fair - but I suspect this will take the path these things always take. A problem is identified and the industry creating it is given a chance to solve the problem itself. It doesn't, and so a harder tool is needed to enforce it for the safety of everyone. Sometimes it does get solved itself, and that's wonderful, but this particular area isn't good at that.

mxuribe 8y ago

Well, there go my plans to build an adamantium drone! :-p (I know, i know, adamantium is not real...)

StavrosK 8y ago
Even if it were real, you'd get a ~3 minute flight time, so eeeeeh.

cco 8y ago

I would also support drone manufacturers self regulating via GPS deadzones in designated no fly areas. Nearly all drones of a meaningful size are GPS enabled and could be disabled in range of a no fly zone. Yes it could be spoofed, yes it would require some effort from manufactures, but self inflicted regulation as an industry here could pay dividends if the alternative is ham fisted regulation following a drone/airplane catastrophe.

NiekvdMaas 8y ago
That's exactly what all major drones do. DJI has a market share of about 75% [1] and you cannot take off any of their success in a restricted flight zone. Flight zone updates are also mandatory and forced to the users. Same for Yuneec, which has another 5% market share. 1. http://thedronegirl.com/2018/09/18/dji-market-share/ http://thedronegirl.com/2018/09/18/dji-market-share/
- cco 8y ago
  Ah interesting, I didn't know!

djsumdog 8y ago

I feel like that's kinda the wrong route to go; because manufactures shouldn't be encouraged to design things for planned obsolescence. There has to be a balance, to where the drone is of the same quality, but has safety components that collapse like the engine compartment of a car.

annabellish 8y ago

>More likely to be implemented In the big guys, sure. "My first drone" bought from some low-end chinese reseller over ebay probably isn't going to do anything which raises costs unless it has to, which is why regulation exists. Not suggesting regulation at this point is fair - but I suspect this will take the path these things always take. A problem is identified and the industry creating it is given a chance to solve the problem itself. It doesn't, and so a harder tool is needed to enforce it for the safety of everyone. Sometimes it does get solved itself, and that's wonderful, but this particular area isn't good at that.